I've read all the comments on here, both good, bad, and badly spelled, and listened to both sides, so I'll say this:

As a concept, and idea, this fails horribly. What do I mean by that? Picture her in an actual battle dressed in that. One single arrow would take her down immediately, and any weapon that hits her will kill her on the spot.

The idea of mages is while heavy armor constructs their movements, causing their spells to fizzle, they at LEAST wear robes that cover their whole bodies, to protect them from the elements, and any light weaponry someone might use on them.

And before anyone brings it up, there is NO type of magic in media to date that requires you to show skin to cast it. Why? Because that's a stupid idea that even hormone driven teenagers and old perverts would dismiss. It leaves the castor wide open to attack, and seriously, there's no logical point or way to have magic work in that way.

Also, I've talked to some women who are friends of mine, and showed them this drawing. They too were shocked by how little clothing the elf is wearing, and proceeded to call her a whore, slut, and prostitute. Real women HATE being subjected as a symbol of sex, as this elf is sadly being portrayed.

The drawing itself is nice, and is far better than anything I could hope to attempt, but the IDEA itself behind it is what's bad. No woman would willingly wear something like this, either in battle or as casual clothing.

The drawing is nice, and you're a good artist. But the concept and idea that this is what one would wear into battle is terrible.

Despite the artist's description, armor has become a placeholder term for all clothing in fantasy games. I wouldn't get bent up about it, there's nothing at stake, not even politics.

A mage's robes (regardless of being fully-covering or revealing) aren't considered armor, even if the game says so. Something like Morrigan's robes from Dragon Age, or even the Circle Mages' robes sure as heck aren't armor, and if you think a layer or two of cloth offers any significant protection, I've got a bridge to sell you.

But on that subject, you could honestly go after plenty of other media examples, for "impractical or nonexistent armor." For example, the getups sported by Conan, John Carter, or the 300 Spartans (from the 2007 Zack Snyder film). Plenty of heroes in action movies with lots of shooting don't wear armor, and I can assure you a bullet does far more damage than a blade or arrow.

Regardless, rules in fantasy games are at the mercy of the developer - they can code this outfit to have more protection than full plate or mail.

It's pretty funny to see all of these people complaing about '' practicality ''.Firstly. It's a FANTASY game. Not all fantasy games have to be '' realistic '', you shouldn't bitch and moan at artists and developers for their artistic decision. Ignore it/ don't buy it, and move along. There's plenty of games for your taste out there. To say that '' the majority of games have skanky girls '' is just dishonest honestly. At least outside of Asia.

Secondly. You people do realize that the average fantasy armor would completely break the spine, shoulders, legs etc on anyone that is wearing it right? Or what about molten lava shoulders and spikes? Don't even get me started on how unrealistic something as simple as spikes on your armor is. And A LOT of the armor designs that people come up with would simply hurt the wearer even if it wasn't heavy. There's a VERY good reason why real armor looks almost the same, if you change little things you may cause HUGE problems , vibrations etc that will just injure you the instant someone strikes you or make you completely immovable.

Why do you people expect and DEMAND that EVERYONE adheres to YOUR specific opinions and preferences? Get over yourselves and stop harassing people.And really, the ironic and funniest thing here is. That this '' armor '' is FAR more realistic than the average big bulked plate armor. Even if you made the assumption that it was weightless or whatever. Just the way that they are usually built.Really, '' realism ''. Pfft.... Right. Be freaking honest here. You're upset because it shows skin. That's it. Don't try and hide behind '' ugh, it's not realistic ''.

Would you rather break bones the very moment that you put your armor on, or break your ribs the moment someone strikes you? Or not get injured by your own armor and be mobile? Ask yourself that BEFORE you start bitching about '' realism ''.

Before I say anything, I'd first like to address the fact that your comment is your opinion, which I fully respect.I do hope you take this comment as someone stating their own opinion, and not trying to sabotage your own.

Firstly, it does not matter if the setting is Fantasy or not. People really need to stop using that excuse to try and justify this kind of absolute bull.

Fantasy is not and should never be exempt from some very basic rules of reality, logic and common sense.I will address a few very basic problems with this design that I have beforehand.

"In a real fight, she would be the first person to die, because the "armor" does nothing to defend her. At all.In fact, this thing isn't even armor, there's only a few pieces of metal, and the rest of it looks like nothing more than thin silk.One of the main tactics in medieval combat was to go after the one with the least defense, that way you wouldn't have to worry about multiple people.

With that in mind, the outfit she's wearing offers literally no protection whatsoever; making her the prime target in battle.Spellcaster or not, it's very easy to get overwhelmed in a fight."

There is absolutely no justification for making a character's outfit look like this, unless you're making some sort of prostitute, in which this makes sense.But if you intend to make a tried and true character and call this kind of design "armor", you need to stop, think with the head located on your shoulders, and redesign it.Designs like this are meant to appeal to horny men or teens, because as the saying goes, "sex sells".

If no one believes me, just look at this picture again.She is literally in nothing but see-through underwear, her nipple is showing through the silk, and there is barely any sort of material that would classify this as actual armor.

No woman in her right mind, would EVER dress like this.If you told a woman that she was going to war medieval style, and you offered her the chance to wear this underwear or this img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20… I 100% guarantee that she would choose the armor in the link.

Pretty much my point throughout all of this, as well as all of my comments on this in general, boil down to two things.

One: This is not armor. It is just underwear with about one or two pieces of metal here and there.

Two: This design, as well as every other design like this has no thought put into the practicality of it or the protection it will offer, but only into how "sexy" they can make it look.

These kinds of designs are why I disdain the armor and weapons of Fantasy these days. Because people have taken the Fantasy genre and turned it into nothing else other than a cesspit of big breasted, practically naked women and tall, rugged men in spiked and bladed armor.It seriously needs to stop, because it has gotten very old, very fast.

First of all, i respect your opinion but i disagree with the logic so much (i know i'm a little late to the discussion )

The two links and your own words can boil down the "problem" to basically practicality. And you (and many others ofc) hate the fact that people use the word fantasy to justify the lack of practicality. However, what you dont make clear (and all others) and kinda mix together is; Is the problem truly practicality or is it the extreme sexism ? Because extreme sexism is another discussion about the way females are being shown in the industry in itself (movies etc). I presume its practicality.

So an armor that shows normal amount of skins (like on males) without being sexificated would still not be good enough, since it wont be practical. Which means, every armor needs to be this upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia… ... Or a variations of that but not too far from it. And we can agree on that is ugly and would ruin the armor aspect of all games and arts. All others armor, sexism or not, would simply NOT be practical. The overly big armor shoulders, spikes, overly designed, fully helmet (ALWAYS) and the list goes on.

And the discussion can turn around and be like "yea but the male still have little practicality while female have none"... Wrong, there is no "more practicality". Any decent historian of medieval times know that. Either you had a practical armor or you were a farmer who got sent as pawns in front.

You post a link asking if a woman will go to war with either picturer a or b. Truth is, none of them. They not practical. (Woman weren't even allowed back at those times which is why joan d'arc is so famous etc)The same goes for the male armor.

So basically all mmo are stuck with one variation of a armor, and it had to be full body and full helmet. Both female and male. This ruin character aspect since you wont see character beneath all that armor. Same model for male and female (Back then they did not add the "breast protection" that many tries to argue is practical, so no bulge at women chest area of the armor, simply a flat line. A bandage wrap was used to make room for the breast). Basically you make "fantasy" into "reality" and that is contradicting to the cause, no?

And yea, there is logic etc in a fantasy world. Like magic, if the world says that controlling earth is limited to 3 rocks etc, then it breaks the logic that one character move the WHOLE earth with his fingertips (exaggerating).But the art and design for armors/cloths have ALWAYS been part of what makes fantasy. It be the same to add logic to the concept of magic itself. Making magic illusions/tricks for realism (the same way people want practicality for realism). But reality is, armor design and lack of practicality of it, magic etc are part of the layers of what makes fantasy. And by adding practicality and removing artistry freedom is slowly killing fantasy by removing layers from the genre. Full suited old medieval armor is not fantasy armor, its historical realism. There no "in-between", either it's practical or it's not. If you bring logic to armors why stop in the middle? "oka the armor is semi practical now, but adding more would make it look ugly"... It just do not make sense with the whole argument

"First of all, i respect your opinion but i disagree with the logic so much (i know i'm a little late to the discussion )"

Thank you for doing so, though I must say that a year old debate should have been left alone.I also hope you don't mind me quoting you to make a few points.

-----

"The two links and your own words can boil down the "problem" to basically practicality. And you (and many others ofc) hate the fact that people use the word fantasy to justify the lack of practicality."

Of course. Fantasy isn't an excuse, nor should it be. It is a genre and should remain as such.

-----

"However, what you dont make clear (and all others) and kinda mix together is; Is the problem truly practicality or is it the extreme sexism ? Because extreme sexism is another discussion about the way females are being shown in the industry in itself (movies etc). I presume its practicality."

All the comments I've made on here pretty much spell out that my problem with it is both.

-----

"So an armor that shows normal amount of skins (like on males) without being sexificated would still not be good enough, since it wont be practical."

Not true. This picture here shows armor that is showing skin, but is still practical.

Simply showing a little bit of skin does not make armor impractical. Key word there being "little bit".

-----

"Which means, every armor needs to be this upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia… ... Or a variations of that but not too far from it. And we can agree on that is ugly and would ruin the armor aspect of all games and arts. All others armor, sexism or not, would simply NOT be practical. The overly big armor shoulders, spikes, overly designed, fully helmet (ALWAYS) and the list goes on."

I'll say here something I've said to many of my roleplaying friends when such an argument has come up.

Practicality does not equal history, nor reality.

The definition of practicality in the sense that I have been using is this.

"You post a link asking if a woman will go to war with either picturer a or b. Truth is, none of them. They not practical. (Woman weren't even allowed back at those times which is why joan d'arc is so famous etc)"

You completely missed my point there and the context in which it was used.

-----

"Basically you make "fantasy" into "reality" and that is contradicting to the cause, no?"

At no point was that said.

Again. Practicality does not equal history, nor reality.

-----

"But the art and design for armors/cloths have ALWAYS been part of what makes fantasy."

"And by adding practicality and removing artistry freedom is slowly killing fantasy by removing layers from the genre."

Practicality does not equal history, nor reality.

You'd be surprised on how many people hate fantasy because of how absurdly impractical and overdone its designs are now. Also don't forget that The Hobbit is what started fantasy. The genre began with practicality, nothing negative would happen to it if it reverted back to such a state.

-----

"Full suited old medieval armor is not fantasy armor, its historical realism."

Practicality does not equal history, nor reality.

-----

"There no "in-between", either it's practical or it's not."

Untrue. This armor here, while somewhat displeasing to the my eyes due to the horrendous pauldrons, is still fully functional and practical. staticdelivery.nexusmods.com/m…

Lastly, I must say that you seem to have missed my point in each of my posts. The point was this.

The character in this image is not wearing armor. There is nothing here to classify it as such. It is impractical in every sense of the word and nothing will change or justify that fact. No woman in her right mind would ever dress in this. This design, as well as every other design like this has no thought put into the practicality of it or the protection it will offer, but only into how "sexy" they can make it look.

I will finish this by again stating that practicality does not equal history, nor reality. As well, I will say that fantasy is not and should never be free from basic logic, common sense, and practical equipment. Fantasy is no excuse to throw such things out the window.

Now, chances are I won't return to this, as quite frankly I've said far enough as it is since I first posted in 2013, and if I say any more I'll start to feel like I'm harrassing the artist.

"Now, chances are I won't return to this, as quite frankly I've said far enough as it is since I first posted in 2013, and if I say any more I'll start to feel like I'm harrassing the artist."

That is fine and understandable. Even tho i can write a lot on where i think you totally wrong i'm going to make it really short so it ends here.

You seem to mix-up practicality with amount of skin shown. Sorry to say, but all the pics you linked are not really practical. Unnecessary weight distributions, unnecessary spikey areas, unnecessary added armor parts which affect movements other places and faulty armor placement of some parts and so on which completely ruins it's practicality.The ONLY real practical armor is the ones from medieval times. You cant simply ADD parts or REMOVE parts. Color it, and some design on it maybe, but anything else will ruin it's practicality. If you say practicality don't equal reality then what can we base the word practicality on? You can't take that word and remove the word reality because then practicality is based on what each individuelle thinks is practical and not. Fantasy isn't one big shared world. Every artist have a set of rules and logic based on his world. That is why if you must add practicality it MUST be via realism.

Ask any normal man and woman who is about to go to war and they would never even dream of going to war with the pics you linked. Movement, speed, weight, placement, colors that make em stand-out, SO much wrong with em.The picture that you added are people in LEATHER and a woman with cleavage. Who will go to war with leather ? Why would a woman wear makeup, make hair and show cleavages in a war/combat place.

Let me tell you why, entertainment. That is why the fantasy genre even got made. Because of the LACK of realism it got called fantasy. Fantasy isn't a "written in stone" kind of thing. Fantasy is fantasy, the rule of the world is entirely up to the author. The word practicality is what the author says it is.

And this picture made by this skilled artist IS armor because the author says its armor. "no thought put into the practicality of it or the protection it will offer, but only into how "sexy" they can make it look." Well that can be said about any armor if you change the word "sexy" to "good". Fantasy artist have always since the beginning of time drawn the armor in stories more about beauty and uniques then pure practicality.

Your hatred for the way girls in games/shows are being overly sexualised is one thing ( and fair ofc), but dont try to justify that with it being unnatural in the fantasy world setting by something as illogical as practicality in a made up world where one guy/woman can take on an army with single hand movements or survive the most absurd situations.

And lastly to clarify, an armor is NOT practical just because it covers a lot of skins. Many factors play into it that actually needs to be studied a lot. What may seems practical may actually be totally impractical.

I love you for that ! It's like in Cinema with all incoherences in movies ! I can't bare people saying it's fiction/science-fiction/fantasy/ or just cinema/entertainment as an excuse ! It doesn't work like this ! Even in a magic universe, it must be logic and sense.PS : sorry of my bad english !

On the aspect of decency, i wholly agree with you. On the subject of practicality, aye also. Using sexually augmented outfits to attract audiences, true. But art is about freedom to express one's desire right? So though impractical, it is what it was meant to be; Art. just that, plain and simple. It should not attract complaints by anyone, though ofc Im not restricting your freedom to express your opinion. Heck, I agree with you on most points but just chill out, I've seen worse. At least this "mage" has SOME clothes on.

I do agree with you, though the line "I agree with you on most points but just chill out, I've seen worse." makes it seem like you're under the impression that I'm angry or at the very least upset, though that isn't the case.

Could be wrong, and my apologies if I am.

And while yes, art is a way to express creativity and desire(sometimes), my entire point throughout all of my posts was that this isn't armor as the artist says, as it's barely even an outfit. As well as the fact that people need to stop using the term "Fantasy" to try and justify this kind of stuff, as fantasy isn't exempt from all the rules of reality. "Magic" and "Fantasy" aren't excuses or justification for making all of the men the Hulk and all of the women practically strippers.(Heck, in a fantasy world, that outfit would be even more impractical, seeing as there are far more people with weapons and bad attitudes in fantasy than in the medieval ages.)

If there were some actual legitimate reason as to why she'd be dressed like this, one that actually makes sense and isn't just a dumb excuse made by someone who is either dirty minded or just ignorant, then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the piece itself.

'Course at the end of the day, I'm just one small guy in a sea of millions of people, so my opinion doesn't really matter anyway.

Oh no, an opinion that has sense will matter compared to fanboyish rants defending sexualized characters. But my point was, the mistake the artist did was to categorize this piece under 'armor' when it is more of a robe or outfit sort of attire. But you seem to place a lot of discomfort on that mistake. If the artist hadn't used armor to describe this layout of equipment, I doubt anyone would be arguing here.

Don't get me wrong, you're right about your points, i just think everyone can draw or make what they like in art, there is no restriction except the mind.

I have noticed that most of the comments where aggresive to the fact that the armor was revealing for one I dont think this armor is as revealing as you all say most of her rear is covered by her cape and hair while the front doesnt cover as much as it could at the bottom but that is justifiably as it could allow for a slightly wider range of movement it may not have been the correct fitting as for her chest it is covered much better than about 80% of the other chest peices I have seen for females and moving on to the charactor herself she is a MAGE to be exact an elementalist so she doesnt need full body covering armor as she would m8st likley be in the rear and depending on how she casts spells she may need some skin showing because she may draw energy frow her surroundings and the material in her armor may limit her ability to do so and you are all missing one EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FACTOR Maybe... she likes it she is a girl after all she could feel more attractive in it giving her pride and confidence as this to may be importent in casting spells

Now aside from my rant I think this armor is extravigent and beautifully composed the armor itself is a work of art and it still would be if it wher made with crayons but its not and it is one of the best styles of art I have ever seen needless to say I FRIGGEN LOVE THIS

" I dont think this armor is as revealing as you all say most of her rear is covered by her cape and hair"

Erm, this "armor" is actually very revealing.The definition of revealing clothes is: "Of clothing allowing more than is usual to be seen."This "armor" looks more like some sort of undergarment or something that a stereotypical prostitute would wear.

In a real fight, she would be the first person to die, because the "armor" does nothing to defend her.In fact, this thing isn't even armor, there's only a few pieces of metal, and the rest of it looks like nothing more than thin silk.One of the main tactics in medieval combat was to go after the one with the least defense, that way you wouldn't have to worry about multiple people.

With that in mind, the outfit she's wearing offers literally no protection whatsoever; making her the prime target in battle.Spellcaster or not, it's very easy to get overwhelmed in a fight.

Also, it doesn't matter if her rear is covered or not, she is still showing far more skin than she should, and she is also showing every last one of her vital points.

"the front doesnt cover as much as it could at the bottom but that is justifiably as it could allow for a slightly wider range of movement"

It's a very common misconception that plate mail, or any form of armor, was incredibly heavy and offered little mobility.Yes some armor was heavy, but not so much that wearing it caused you to struggle just to move.If armor didn't offer that much mobility, they wouldn't have worn it back then, as the point of combat is to be able to move without restriction so as to avoid your opponent and help your weapon meet it's mark.When people say "all in the footwork", there is truth to that.

"as for her chest it is covered much better than about 80% of the other chest peices I have seen for females"

If you've actually seen outfits/armor that are more skanky than this, than those outfits/armor must be borderline pornographic; and the women wearing them deserve to get impaled by a spear.

"moving on to the charactor herself she is a MAGE to be exact an elementalist so she doesnt need full body covering armor as she would m8st likley be in the rear"

Mage or no, wearing that little of armor is still going to make her a prime target.Especially for archers, who can simply hide in bushes or sneak around her so as to shoot her in the back.If she's in the rear, that also means the others wouldn't see the archers going after her, so staying in the rear would also be incredibly dangerous.

"depending on how she casts spells she may need some skin showing because she may draw energy frow her surroundings and the material in her armor may limit her ability to do so"

That sounds like an excuse that a perverted man would use so as to make his mage show this much skin.Also, the possibility that she needs to show some skin, has a keyword in there.

That being, "some skin".If all she needs to do is show some skin, she doesn't have to go practically naked.

Also, material doesn't seem to be much of a problem, as if it was, she still wouldn't need to show that much skin.

"you are all missing one EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FACTOR Maybe... she likes it she is a girl after all she could feel more attractive in it giving her pride and confidence as this to may be importent in casting spells"

Alright, as I am a guy, I can't really speak for women, but I can say that I highly doubt that any woman would willingly dress like this in battle, just because she likes it and/or wants to.

Women would more than likely look at this, and see how impractical it would be to wear into battle, and would probably ask for something that wouldn't make every enemy on the field go after her.Also, without trying to sound rude or sexist, if a woman needs to be practically naked so as to feel pride and confidence, than I feel very sorry for her, because that doesn't sound right at all.

Well, that's all I've got to say.Fantasy or not, this "armor" is still highly impractical and would lead this woman to her death sooner or later.